halls120

I was wondering the same thing - I can't think of a single context in which that statement is acceptable.

Travelsonic

Actually, that is a contradiction. In order for a computer to display those images, they need to be stored somehow - whether it is on a hard disk, or in random access memory for a short period of time.

Caradoc

Not when the computer is used solely for analysis and snapshot, and isn't part of the data path between the CCD and the display screen...

In one of my previous lines of work it was very common to hook up a camera and a display monitor, with a computer accepting the output from the display (via NTSC) to a capture board. When the operator wanted to grab a frame for analysis, they'd slap the button and the computer would immediately sample the frame.

If nobody slapped the button, the image simply wasn't present in any form that could be recalled - it was *gone*.

Caradoc

I've heard something pretty close when backstage with three make-up artists and a lot of actors/actresses...

"I thought I was supposed to do her."

But I can't think of any circumstances at all during which it would be appropriate for a uniformed male TSA employee to say about a female whether passenger or fellow employee.

Boggie Dog

Does sound like some internal TSA discussion has happened already and the word is to deflect.

FliesWay2Much

The perception management technique of "deflection" was instituted in the TSA a long time ago when they successfully framed the debate into one of compliance versus getting through the checkpoint quickly. Erosion of civil liberties and intrusive searches are no longer in the debate. This has also allowed them to pit citizen against citizen while they stand on the sidelines watching freedom self-destruct. "Deflection" means that the good citizens are ones who comply. The bad citizens are those who do anything other than comply. Totalitarian leaders of past & present would be proud of us.

gsoltso

It is not acceptable under any circumstance, however, not everyone has the extended and selective command of the vernacular that we do.

Nope, I just don't have enough information to comment on this case past "If it was stated in a lewd way, chuckles should be booted now". That being said, not everyone speaks the same way I do, or you do. It could have been an awkward statement with no intention behind it. Have you never made a statement that as soon as it was out of your mouth, you wanted to reach out and grab it to pull it back in? We all say stupid things some times, and I simply do not have enough information to make any other statement than I already have.

There are varying standards for discipline based on the situation.

Because I do not like to speak out (or for that matter even form an opinion) based on one side of a story. It can lead to snap judgements and bad decisions or statements that you could regret later.

I would hope that an investigation would be conducted if the passenger filed a complaint. I would encourage them to do so if they have not already.

I have talked with some of my coworkers about this and the attitude has been pretty similar to what I have said here - "if he was macking, he should be packing" was a direct quote from one of my compadres. We have talked about several incidents, and almost always, the responses from my coworkers run the gamut from "What a dummy" to "What a moronic ultra sized d*****" and even worse. I keep saying I am lucky, and I truly am for where I work. We also discussed the Bierfeldt incident ad nauseum and the consensus was that the TSO was a power tripping moron. We talk a bout 99% of the stuff you see in the media, and there are an array of opinions, but pretty much they call a knucklehead a knucklehead.


It would not be, but as mentioned, intent should be part of the determination of discipline.

Tom M.

Yes I have and when I have done so, I have immediately apologized and corrected my statement. I won't hold my breath waiting to hear that the TSO in this situation has personally apologized.


You mean like "Another Security expert heard from"

If TSA was professional, its employees and the public wouldn't need to hope.

Loren Pechtel

No. You could still want the drive to store the program itself.

Loren Pechtel

Yeah--I'm sure they store them for this reason. I think at best the operators have no way to call up the stored images.

deldel

Interesting how they want to criminalize posting the images instead of saving the images. I wonder if this law would also apply to websites that get the images leaked to them? That way DHS could bring criminal charges against Wikileaks or any other watchdog sites that would want to expose the fact that they are saving images.


I can't help but be reminded of the following quote from the Fed's naked scanner bible:

Airline Passenger Security Screening: New
Technologies and Implementation Issues (1996)

URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5116.html

Page 54 under the heading SOME POSSIBLE LEGAL CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC SCREENING TECHNOLOGIES:

"However, this ability to store and reproduce images may create the urge to archive data on people entering airports and to store the data at least until all flights have arrived safely at their destinations."

But the TSA doesn't do this.......right?

chollie

?? I really don't see any excuse for this TSO's off-color comment. This was a male TSO talking about frisking a female passenger. This had nothing to do with shortage of manpower, command of vernacular or anything else. An employee in my organization making a similar comment would be immediately hauled up before HR. How can 'intent' be an excuse in this situation? Was his intent to be 'funny'? Really? A male TSO suggesting he should be frisking a female passenger is 'funny'? How do you suppose other female passengers in the area felt after hearing this? How do you suppose this passenger or any others present will feel the next time they approach your checkpoint and are taken aside for a frisk?

Would it be 'funny' if a male TSO at your checkpoint joked with a female co-worker about patting her down or viewing her during training on the AIT?

It's one more example of a desperate need for self-policing in your organization. As far as I'm concerned, that TSO should have been disciplined and so should any others who witnessed the incident and didn't either immediately call him out about it or report it to management.

Sorry, I usually find your posts reasonable and thoughtful, even though I disagree with your world view. I could understand your perspective on the Crabtree incident, although I still felt that if pax are never given the benefit of a doubt, TSOs shouldn't be either. But I think you are way off base on this one.

IMHO, the only 'wiggle room' you have is to take a page from eyecue's book and claim the incident either never happened or didn't happen as stated. (Somehow the only incidents that are fictitious are those that display inexcusable or non-SOP TSO activity, of course).

gsoltso

Command of the vernacular may be a key here - don't bash gang, I am simply playing devils advocate! I personally think that if the incident occurred as written, then this particular employee should be disciplined - no excuses.

If this was said in jest or in an attempt to be humorous (or even if he were attempting to "mack"), then he should be disciplined - no exceptions (and at my airport, he would have been jumped on by a couple of coworkers and it would have been reported).

Normally, I would say zero tolerance, but for some of the discussions I have heard at checkpoints between passengers and TSOs. I have had females come through and initiate jokes with TSOs about how they want a specific TSO to perform their pat down, the same with male passengers. In that situation, normal conversation follows with the polite decline based on the males search males and females - females SOP. Even with that allowance, the way this commentary we have been discussing is worded, he needs to be disciplined. Is that a bit clearer statement of where I am coming from?

Separate discussion - Just for the sake of argument, what if this was the normal vernacular for this individual? What if there was no erroneous intent behind the statement? What if the person was in training and needed the practice to get more comfortable with the process (when I was new, I volunteered for about every bag check and pat down that came along to make certain I was comfortable with what I was doing). I personally do not believe this is the case, but what if it were?

gsoltso

I myself have done just that as well.

I mean like an investigation being performed and followed through on.

This presupposes that TSA management actually knows of this individual situation. If something like this were reported at my airport, I have complete confidence that it would be addressed per protocols.

FliesWay2Much

A couple of comments --

1. You would do well to consider that the passenger-initiated jokes by could very well be ridicule.

2. I'm sure you understand from your mandatory sexual harassment training that the only thing that matters is if the recipient of the statement was offended.